Nowadays, many buildings, especially the entrance doors of high-rise residences, are basically opened inward when delivered by real estate developers, but some homeowners will change the door from the inside to the outside in order to save indoor space when decorating; Some people simply tear down the wall and change the door to a wider and higher grade in order to make their entrance door look atmospheric and high-grade, so is it okay to make such a change? There are not many lawsuits caused by arbitrary changes to the door, let's first look at a case decided by the Fengtai District People's Court in Beijing.
Changing the direction of the entrance door without authorization will cause disputes in the neighborhood
The dispute arose between the 1403 and 1404 owners, who were close to each other, and due to the developer's design problems, the entrance doors of the two houses were at a 90-degree angle, and the developers delivered them with internal doors. The owner of 1404 said that when he received the house from the developer, he negotiated to install a ventilation door that opened outward on the outside of the entrance door, and because the door of the 1403 homeowner was opened inward, it had little impact, and the two families were in peace for more than ten years. In 2023, the old homeowner of 1403 sold the house, and the new homeowner started the renovation after the purchase.
1403 new homeowner in the door from the inside to open outside, the direct consequence is that his door is completely opened, almost the door of the 1404 house completely blocked, at first the 1404 family just feel that it is inconvenient to go out, but the two open the door to pay attention to each other is not impossible, until once the two opened the door at the same time, there was a situation where the doorknob was stuck with each other, and 1404 could not go out.
When the negotiation failed, the owner of the 1404 house sued the owner of the 1403 house to the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing, demanding that the owner of the 1403 house restore the door to its original state, that is, change it back to the inner door. The owner of 1403 admitted that after he changed the direction of opening the door, it did affect the travel of 1404 families, and also proposed a compromise solution.
1403 Homeowner: I really can't say I can install a door closer, what is the concept of a door closer? When I open it, it closes like a spring, so it doesn't affect the access, it's an instantaneous situation, and the door closes immediately after entering or leaving.
The owner of 1404 did not accept this plan, believing that it would not completely eliminate the safety hazards in his home.
After the trial, the court held that in 2023, without the consent of the 1404 homeowner, the 1403 homeowner changed the entrance door from the inside to the outside, which did hinder the travel of the 1404 family, and in extreme cases, it may lead to the situation that the 1404 door could not be opened. The national standard "Unified Standard for Civil Building Design" issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the mainland stipulates that the evacuation width of the walkway and staircase should not be affected after the door leaf opening to the evacuation walkway and stairwell is fully opened. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD) stipulates that outward opening of doors should not obstruct the opening of public transport and adjacent doors.
The court finally ruled that the owner of the 1403 house restored the entrance door of the house in question to an internal door. At present, the judgment has entered into force and has been fulfilled.
Door-to-door neighbors have changed their entrance doors to influence each other
In this case, the court ruled that the owner of the defendant 1403 changed the door from the outside to the inside. Some people have also noticed that in this case, the owner of the plaintiff 1404 also changed the door from the inside to the outside, but this judgment did not make him change it back, why is this? According to the judge, there is a principle called "no prosecution and no ignorance" in the Civil Procedure Law, and in this case, the owner of 1403 did not argue that the door of 1404 was changed to open outward, which affected his home, so the court did not hear this issue. In the following case, after the two heads of households changed the entrance door from the inside to the outside, they affected each other, and the court finally ruled that both families should be restored to their original state.
This case occurred in Chaoyang District, Beijing, where the original defendants lived in 1505 and 1507, and the two families shared a walkway, and the doors of the two houses were at a 90-degree angle. Mr. Li, the owner of 1507 home, bought a first-hand house in 2004, and Mr. Sui, the owner of 1505 home, bought a second-hand house in 2020.
Judge Wang Tianshui of Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court: Mr. Sui's change caused him to run into Mr. Li twice when he opened the door, and Mr. Li raised an objection, saying that Mr. Sui, you changed the door from pushing the door from inward to outward, which caused some damage to my family's travel, and he asked Mr. Sui to change the entrance door from the state of pushing out and back to the state of pushing inward.
Since the renovation had already been completed, it would take time and money to change the door back, so Mr. Sui was not very happy, so the two families had a dispute. When Mr. Sui looked at the floor plan, he suddenly found that the door of the neighbor's house seemed to be not next to his house, and when he looked up and down the other floors, he found that the neighbor's house had moved the door.
Judge Wang Tianshui of Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court: The No. 07 house owned by Mr. Li's family is in a state of indentation in the public passage, so that the public passage of the two houses is actually a relatively spacious state, but around 2017, Mr. Li pushed the entrance door of the whole door by about 55 cm, so that it formed a basically flush state with the public passage, and after the change, the doors of the two families just formed a tight angle, which is basically a 90-degree angle. Door-to-door in such a state.
Due to the narrow aisle, Mr. Sui admitted that the opening of his door did affect the travel of his neighbors. However, he immediately filed a counterclaim against his neighbor for moving the entrance door 55 centimeters outward and encroaching on the public corridor, demanding that the neighbor Mr. Li restore the entrance door of his house to its original state.
Mr. Li, a neighbor, argued that he had obtained the consent of the original owner of 1505 and the property management company to move the door.
After hearing the case, the court held that Article 288 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the owner of adjacent rights to immovable property shall correctly handle the adjacent relationship in accordance with the principles of conducive to production, convenience of life, solidarity and mutual assistance, fairness and reasonableness. In this case, Mr. Sui's change of the entrance door of the house from inward to outward will make it difficult for Mr. Li's family, who live next to him, to predict when the door will open, which poses a potential risk to Mr. Li's family. Mr. Li's act of expanding the location of the entrance door of his house would crowd out the space of the common passage outside the entrance doors of the two houses, and his act was not justified by obtaining the consent of the original owner of the neighbor's house or the property management company.
In the end, the court ruled that both companies should cease their respective nuisance acts and restore their entrance doors to their pre-renovation state.
Can the pursuit of "high-door households" privately tear down the load-bearing wall and change it to the entrance door?
According to the judge, many buildings, especially high-rise residences, are now required by the national architectural design standards and the fire law to set the entrance door to open inward, because the aisles of many buildings are relatively narrow, and if the entrance door is opened outside, once it encounters an emergency such as fire, it will cause the passage to be blocked, thereby threatening the personal and property safety of residents. So although the house is owned by the owner, the entrance door is really not how the owner wants to change it. In real life, there are still people who pursue the so-called "big doors" in order to look atmospheric, and make their entrance doors wider and taller by demolishing walls and other methods, so what should we do in the face of such transformation?
According to the judge, it is not advisable to remove the wall without permission to install the entrance door wider and higher, because under normal circumstances, the exterior walls of the owner's house are load-bearing walls, and such forced demolition and destruction are not allowed.
The judge reminded that if the consequences of demolishing the load-bearing wall are serious and endanger the safety of the building, then the perpetrator will not only compensate for the loss and restore the original state, but may also face administrative penalties or even criminal penalties.
If someone doesn't tear down the wall, they just want to make the door more beautiful and more magnificent through decoration, and if the neighbor has an opinion or is worried about the bad feng shui of their own house to sue the court, what will the court do?
Judge Wang Tianshui of Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court: Some of our parties will also sue for this reason, for example, the setting of the windows of your house, or the setting of the door of your house, and feel that the feng shui of my house is not very good, but in fact, the court's judgment on the case is still based on his change, whether his setting will actually cause a nuisance to the adjacent rights holder or other owners, or form a potential danger, if it does not cause an obstruction, it will not say that it will be ordered to renovate the door.
For individual owners who occupy the public space of the corridor outside the door, place their own shoe cabinets, lockers, sundries, etc., if the neighbors fail to dissuade them and complain to the property, the property cannot be solved, and how will the court judge if they sue the court?
Judge Wang Tianshui of Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court: If the owner does occupy a large piece of the common part, his occupation of the common part may cause obstruction to the normal passage of other residents, may also cause the blockage of fire escapes or escape routes, and may also cause a series of nuisances to the property management company, such as cleaning services, etc., if these obstructions do exist, his neighbors are based on the neighboring relationship. It is also said that the property management company can claim rights against him based on the property service contract, require him to stop the infringement, and then restore the original state.
Source: CCTV news client